Statutory Attendance Requirements are Mandatory and Cannot be Waived or Overridden by Judicial Sympathy

The petitioner, a B.Tech student at Motihari College of Engineering (Session 2024–28), was debarred from appearing in the 2nd Semester Examination due to a shortage of attendance

The petitioner contended that classes started late and remedial classes were not held, preventing him from meeting the 75% requirement

He further argued that under a new University Regulation (effective 2026-27), students should be promoted regardless of attendance or CGPA

During the pendency of the matter, he was also prevented from attending 3rd and 4th-semester classes

The University countered that the petitioner is governed by the 2011-12 Regulation, which strictly mandates 75% attendance

The court primarily applied Clause 6.1 of the Bihar Engineering University Regulations (2011-12), which mandates a minimum of 75% attendance in theory and practical papers to appear in semester examinations

It further relied on Clause 5.10, which requires students awarded "Grade X" (debarred) to re-register for the course and attend classes as per rules

The Court followed the precedent set by the Division Bench in LPA No. 380 of 2025, which established that the 75% attendance requirement is statutory and binding, and that sympathy cannot override statutory rules

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the 2026-27 Regulations, noting they are specifically prospective and do not apply to the petitioner’s current academic session

The Court observed that the petitioner admittedly failed to achieve the 75% attendance mark

Applying the principle from the Division Bench, the Court held that since the attendance requirement is a statutory mandate, no condonation beyond permissible limits can be granted

The Court reasoned that there is no provision in the applicable 2011-12 Regulation allowing a debarred student to proceed to the next semester without fulfilling the attendance criteria first through re-registration

The writ petition was closed, and the Court declined to quash the debarment. However, the Court held that the petitioner may apply for fresh registration for the 2nd Semester and attend classes as per the 2011-12 Regulation.

The Court directed that this order shall not prevent the petitioner from seeking re-registration in the 2nd Semester in accordance with applicable rules